You are defending calling the S&P 500 by the name "Buffet" because you read Meb Faber's book. Doesn't that tell everyone else what they need to know about the book?
Why compare 100% S&P 500 to a mix of 90% S&P 500 / 10% bonds? Why call that "Buffet"? The sole aim is to sideline Buffet's real performance - he beat the S&P 500 for decades. But instead of using that track record, the book compares the S&P 500 to itself, and gives it the name "Buffet". The S&P 500 was called "Bogle's Folly" by skeptics who didn't believe in the future of index investing. The most appropriate person to associate with championing investing in the S&P 500 would be Vanguard founder John Bogle.
I believe there's also other misrepresentations like David Swensen, who is famous for his investment returns as head of the Yale Endowment. Private equity investments are very high risk, but provided Yale's Endowment with higher returns. What does Meb Faber do in his book? Discard the allocation to private equity. He doesn't explore how private equity is outside the public markets, and therefore doesn't have to add up to the market return. Instead Swensen's performance is misrepresented without an allocation to private equity.
And for Swedroe, he very clearly gives 2 models - one with a 15% weight to US Small cap, and one with a 15% wieghting to SCV, so I don't know how you are interpreting his interpretation, but you're basically talking nonsense.
It's misleading comparing 100% equities to 30% equities, but in Meb Faber's book in appendix F he does exactly that:
https://mebfaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/GAA-Book-1.pdf#page=104Where is the small cap value tilt you claim Meb Faber uses? It's not there, because he has decided to use the lowest equity allocation of any portfolio Swedroe ever used. There's no value tilt, where large caps are split between large cap and large cap value. There isn't even an allocation to "small cap value", because Meb Faber doesn't admit that category exists: in his pre-defined categories, there's only "US Large cap" and "US Small cap". By hacking away at the things that make Swedroe unique, Faber avoids admitting that historically tilts to small cap and value have beaten the market - which would destroy his thesis that famous investors have similar performance to the market.
Avoiding private equity for a "Swensen" portfolio is misleading.
Stripping out "small cap value" and "large cap value" and calling that a Swedroe portfolio is misleading.
Comparing 100% equities to 30% equities is misleading.
Giving the S&P 500 the name "Buffet" is misleading.